June 30, 1942

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS

CONSTITUENCY OP STANSTEAD-JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT OP CANADA

LIB

Georges Parent (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have the honour to inform the house that I have received from the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada certified copy of judgment of the said court setting aside the decision of the trial judges of the Superior Court of Quebec and declaring the petition in the matter of the election for the electoral district of Stanstead should be maintained and the election of the respondent for the House of Commons should be annulled.

Topic:   CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS
Subtopic:   CONSTITUENCY OP STANSTEAD-JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT OP CANADA
Permalink

PRIVILEGE

MR. O'NEILL-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OP MR. MACINNIS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 29


On the orders of the day: Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops): Yesterday when I was speaking in this house in the debate on the mobilization act amendment bill, the hqn. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said that some things I said were not true. In order to keep the record straight I wish to refer to page 3770 of Hansard, where the hon. member for Vancouver East is reported to have said: I want to correct the hon. member's statement. His assertions are wrong. There was no Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in this house in 1934. The record is somewhat different. On February 1, 1933, at page 1687 of Hansard, the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, then the member for Winnipeg North Centre, speaking to a resolution of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, had this to say: When I introduced this motion a year ago there was no large body of organized opinion behind it. To-day that situation is altered, for last August there was organized the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation- Then he goes on to say: We endorse the general viewpoint and programme involved in socialization of our economic life as these have already been outlined and accepted by the labour, farmer and socialist groups affiliating.


CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Is this a question of privilege? I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. O'NEILL-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OP MR. MACINNIS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 29
Permalink
LIB

Georges Parent (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman is speaking to a question of privilege in regard to a statement which he made yesterday and which the hon. member for Vancouver East characterized as incorrect.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. O'NEILL-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OP MR. MACINNIS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 29
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

We were not able to

hear what the hon. gentleman was saying. I heard indistinctly the name of Mr. Woodsworth mentioned, but could not hear anything else.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. O'NEILL-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OP MR. MACINNIS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 29
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. MacINNIS:

On a question of

privilege-

Some hon. MEMBES: Order.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. O'NEILL-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OP MR. MACINNIS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 29
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. MacINNIS:

If the hon. member for

Kamloops makes a statement we surely have the right to reply. His statement should have been made last night.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. O'NEILL-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OP MR. MACINNIS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 29
Permalink
LIB

Georges Parent (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman is

referring to a statement he made in debate, which, he says, the hon. member for Vancouver East characterized as untrue. He is now rising to a question of privilege in order to substantiate the statement he made.

Mr. O'NEILL: The hon. member for

Vancouver East did not merely characterize it as untrue; he said positively that it was not true. That was in connection with my statement that the hon. member for Vancouver East had voted with -the Conservative government for private ownership of the Bank of Canada, when the bill relating to the Bank of Canada was introduced for third reading.

Privilege-Mr. Church

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. O'NEILL-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OP MR. MACINNIS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 29
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

This is

an argument.

Mr. O'NEILL: I have not taken up much of the time of this house, Mr. Speaker, and I think I have the right to proceed. On June 28, 1934, the hon. member for Vancouver East and the late Mr. Woodsworth voted with the government on the third reading of the bill for the establishment of a privately-owned central bank, on a division in which the Liberals all voted against privately-owned banks.

MR. CHURCH-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OF MR. SI/AGHT IN DEBATE ON JUNE 25

On the orders of the day:

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. O'NEILL-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OP MR. MACINNIS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 29
Permalink
NAT

Thomas Langton Church

National Government

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

I rise to a question of privilege. I wish to refer to a speech made in the house last Thursday by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), at page 3695 of Hansard, in which he mentioned myself and the Union government and the Military Service Act. He based his remarks on a text book, Doctor Skelton's "Life of Sir Wilfrid Laurier." He said:

I am sorry the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) is not here, for the Toronto Globe referred to the widespread feeling of disappointment, while it is said that Mayor Church of Toronto stated:

"The Military Service Act will cost the country millions and is getting very little results. If the government had spent one-quarter of the money in voluntary recruiting, they would have got more men."

Let me say that this book does not quote the page or the issue of the Toronto Globe, nor does it say what I said, because the remarks were never made in that connection. I was complaining about one thing, and that was a lack of equitable enforcement of that act throughout Canada. I complained because before the act became effective Toronto and Ontario had been dried up of voluntary recruits, and hardly any could be further obtained.

I never saw Doctor Skelton's text book until this afternoon. And may I .say that the hon. member for Parry Sound has described the author of the book as an historian. Well, if he is an historian he should state facts. The book does not state facts, because the real fact is that from the start I strongly supported the Union government and the Military Service Act. My only complaint was in connection with the non-enforcement of the act elsewhere in the province, and particularly its enforcement in Toronto. I called attention to the fact that that enforcement was not equitable. In reply to the hon. member for Parry Sound I say that what I said was that the enforcement of the act was unfair to Toronto and to Ontario generally.

Two or three years before this war, from 1937 to 1939, I urged on many occasions here a compulsory selective service register for Canada. I have been a supporter of that policy, and before and during the 1940 election I supported conscription and the policy of equality of sacrifice. Then the hon. member for Parry Sound makes things worse by casting reflections upon me, and by attempting to show a worse side of the picture. Referring to me he said "that I had been misled by my absentee leader". I was not a member of the House of Commons between 1917 and 1921. And may I point out in passing that the absentee leader to whom he refers has two sons in England, and that the party he refers to polled nearly one-half of the total vote in the elections of 1940. I might have something to say about these matters in another debate, because the hon. member has not stated the facts exactly and the connection to which they relate. His facts are not correct, nor are those of the writer of the book. I may challenge this or discuss it at another time.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. O'NEILL-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OP MR. MACINNIS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 29
Permalink

EXCESS PROFITS TAX

BUDGET PROVISION FOR REFUND OF 20 PER CENT AFTER THE WAR


On the orders of the day:


LIB

Brooke Claxton

Liberal

Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George):

In view of concern which has been expressed to the effect that the 20 per cent of excess profits tax to be refunded after the war is to be taxable as income when refunded, would the Minister of Finance make a statement in the matter?

Topic:   EXCESS PROFITS TAX
Subtopic:   BUDGET PROVISION FOR REFUND OF 20 PER CENT AFTER THE WAR
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

It will not be subject to income tax when refunded. It will be regarded as a part of income which is already taxed.

Topic:   EXCESS PROFITS TAX
Subtopic:   BUDGET PROVISION FOR REFUND OF 20 PER CENT AFTER THE WAR
Permalink

REDUCTION OF PRICE PAID BY PACKERS TO FARMERS

June 30, 1942